Date: Tue 12 Apr 1988 22:48-PDT From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws Reply-To: AIList@KL.SRI.COM Us-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA 94025 Phone: (415) 859-6467 Subject: AIList V6 #67 - Future of AI To: AIList@KL.SRI.COM Status: R AIList Digest Wednesday, 13 Apr 1988 Volume 6 : Issue 67 Today's Topics: Opinion - The Future Of AI ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 Mar 88 09:18:18 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!simon@uunet.uu.net (Simon Brooke) Subject: Re: The future of AI [was Re: Time Magazine -- Computers of the Future] In article <5789@swan.ulowell.edu> sbrunnoc@eagle.UUCP (Sean Brunnock) writes: >In article <962@daisy.UUCP> klee@daisy.UUCP (Ken Lee) writes: >>What do people think of the PRACTICAL future of artificial intelligence? >> >>Is AI just too expensive and too complicated for practical use? I >> >>Does AI have any advantage over conventional programming? > > Bear with me while I put this into a sociological perspective. The first >great "age" in mankind's history was the agricultural age, followed by the >industrial age, and now we are heading into the information age. The author Oh God! I suppose the advantage of the net is that it allows us to betray our ignorance in public, now and again. This is 'sociology'? Dear God! > For example, give a machine access to knowledge of aerodynamics, >engines, materials, etc. Now tell this machine that you want it to >design a car that can go this fast, use this much fuel per mile, cost >this much to make, etc. The machine thinks about it and out pops a >design for a car that meets these specifications. And here we really do have God - the General Omnicompetent Device - which can search an infinite space in finite time. (Remember that Deep Thought took 7 1/2 million years to calculate the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything - and at the end of that time could not say what the question was). Seriously, if this is why you are studying AI, throw it in and study some philosophy. There *are* good reasons for studying AI: some people do it in order to 'find out how people work' - I have no idea whether this project is well directed, but it is certain to raise a lot of interesting problems. Another is to use it as a tool for exploring our understanding of such concepts as 'understanding', 'knowledge', 'intelligence' - or, in my case, 'explanation'. Obviously I believe this project is well directed, and I know it raises lots of of interesting problems... And occasionally these interesting problems will spin off technologies which can be applied to real world tasks. But to see AI research as driven by the need to produce spin-offs seems to me to be turning the whole enterprise on its head. ** Simon Brooke ********************************************************* * e-mail : simon@uk.ac.lancs.comp * * surface: Dept of Computing, University of Lancaster, LA 1 4 YW, UK. * ************************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 88 18:35:41 GMT From: trwrb!aero!srt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Scott R. Turner) Subject: Re: The future of AI - my opinion I think the important point is that as soon as AI figures something out, it is not only no longer considered to be AI, it is also no longer considered to be intelligence. Expert systems is a good example. The early theory was, let's try and build programs like experts, and that will give us some idea of why those experts are intelligent. Now a days, people say "expert systems - oh, that's just rule application." There's some truth to that viewpoint - I don't think expert systems has a lot to say about intelligence - but it's a bad trap to fall into. Eventually we'll build a computer that can pass the Turing Test and people will still be saying "That's not intelligence, that's just a machine." -- Scott Turner ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 88 18:13:10 GMT From: bloom-beacon.mit.edu!boris@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Boris N Goldowsky) Subject: Re: The future of AI - my opinion In article <28619@aero.ARPA> srt@aero.ARPA (Scott R. Turner) writes: Eventually we'll build a computer that can pass the Turing Test and people will still be saying "That's not intelligence, that's just a machine." -- Scott Turner This may be true, but at the same time the notion that a machine could never think is slowly being eroded away. Perhaps by the time such a "Turing Machine"* could be built, "just a machine" will no longer imply non-intelligence, because they'll be too many semiinteligent machines around. But I think it is a good point that every time we do begin to understand some subdomain of intelligence, it becomes clear that there is much more left to be understood... ->Boris G. (*sorry.) -- Boris Goldowsky boris@athena.mit.edu or @adam.pika.mit.edu %athena@eddie.UUCP @69 Chestnut St.Cambridge.MA.02139 @6983.492.(617) ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 88 18:27:25 GMT From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Rick Wojcik) Subject: Re: The future of AI In article <1134@its63b.ed.ac.uk> gvw@its63b.ed.ac.uk (G Wilson) writes: >[re: my reference to natural language programs] >Errmmm...show me *any* program which can do these things? To date, >AI has been successful in these areas only when used in toy domains. > NLI's Datatalker, translation programs marketed by Logos, ALPs, WCC, & other companies, LUNAR, the LIFER programs, CLOUT, Q&A, ASK, INTELLECT, etc. There are plenty. All have flaws. Some are more "toys" than others. Some are more commercially successful than others. (The goal of machine translation, at present, is to increase the efficiency of translators--not to produced polished translations.) >... Does anyone think AI would be as prominent >as it is today without (a) the unrealistic expectations of Star Wars, >and (b) America's initial nervousness about the Japanese Fifth Generation >project? > I do. The Japanese are overly optimistic. But they have shown greater persistence of vision than Americans in many commercial areas. Maybe they are attracted by the enormous potential of AI. While it is true that Star Wars needs AI, AI doesn't need Star Wars. It is difficult to think of a scientific project that wouldn't benefit by computers that behave more intelligently. >Manifest destiny?? A century ago, one could have justified >continued research in phrenology by its popularity. Judge science >by its results, not its fashionability. > Right. And in the early 1960's a lot of people believed that we couldn't land people on the moon. When Sputnik I was launched my 5th grade teacher told the class that they would never orbit a man around the earth. I don't know if phrenology ever had a respectable following in the scientific community. AI does, and we ought to pursue it whether it is popular or not. >I think AI can be summed up by Terry Winograd's defection. His >SHRDLU program is still quoted in *every* AI textbook (at least all >the ones I've seen), but he is no longer a believer in the AI >research programme (see "Understanding Computers and Cognition", >by Winograd and Flores). Weisenbaum's defection is even better known, and his Eliza program is cited (but not quoted :-) in every AI textbook too. Winograd took us a quantum leap beyond Weisenbaum. Let's hope that there will be people to take us a quantum leap beyond Winograd. But if our generation lacks the will to tackle the problems, you can be sure that the problems will wait around for some other generation. They won't get solved by pessimists. Henry Ford had a good way of putting it: "If you believe you can, or if you believe you can't, you're right." -- Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@boeing.com uucp: {uw-june uw-beaver!ssc-vax}!bcsaic!rwojcik address: P.O. Box 24346, MS 7L-64, Seattle, WA 98124-0346 phone: 206-865-3844 ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 88 12:24:51 GMT From: otter!cdfk@hplabs.hp.com (Caroline Knight) Subject: Re: Re: The future of AI - my opinion The Turing Test is hardly adequate - I'm surprised that people still bring it up - indeed it is exactly the way in which people's expectations change with what they have already seen on a computer which makes this a test with continuously changing criteria. For instance, take someone who has never heard of computers and show them any competent game and the technically unsophisticated may well believe the machine is playing intelligently (I have trouble with my computer beating me at Scrabble) but those who have become familiar with such phenomena "know better" - its "just programmed". The day when we have won is the inverse of the Turing Test - someone will say this has to be a human not a computer - a computer couldn't have made such a crass mistake - but then maybe the computer just wanted to win and looked like a human... I realise that this sounds a little flippant but I think that there is a serious point in it - I rely on your abilities as intelligent readers to read past my own crassness and understand my point. Caroline Knight ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 88 18:47:28 GMT From: hpcea!hpnmd!hpsrla!hpmwtla!garyb@hplabs.hp.com (Gary Bringhurst) Subject: Re: The future of AI [was Re: Time Magazine -- Computers of the Future] > Some people wondered what > was the use of opening up a trans-continental railroad when the pony > express could send the same letter or package to where you wanted in just > seven days.... > > Sean Brunnock > University of Lowell > sbrunnoc@eagle.cs.ulowell.edu I have to agree with Sean here. So let's analyze his analogy more closely. AI is to the railroad as conventional CS wisdom is to the pony express. Railroads can move mail close to three times faster than ponys, therefore AI programs perform proportionately better than the alternatives, and are not sluggish or resource gluttons. Trains are MUCH larger than ponys, so AI programs must be larger as well. Trains travel only in well defined tracks, while ponys have no such limitations... Hey, don't trains blow a lot of smoke? Gary L. Bringhurst ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 88 18:11:49 GMT From: pur-phy!mrstve!mdbs!kbc@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin Castleberry) Subject: Re: The future of AI [was Re: Time Magazine -- Computers of the Future] > It should increase the skill of the >person doing the job by doing those things which are boring >or impractical for humans but possible for computers. >... > When sharing a job >with a computer which tasks are best automated and which best >given to the human - not just which is it possible to automate! For the most part, this is what I see happening in the truly succesful ES applications I see implemented. Occasionally there is one that provides a solution to a problem so complex that humans did not try. Most of the time it is just providing the human a quicker and more reliable way to get the job done so s/he can move on to more interesting tasks. >Perhaps computers will free people up so that they can go back >to doing some of the tasks that we currently have machines do >- has anyone thought of it that way? I certainly have observed this. Often the human starts out doing interesting designing, problem solving etc., but then gets bogged down in the necessities of keeping the *system* running. I have observed such automation giving humans back the job they enjoy. >And if we are going to do people out of jobs then we'd better >start understanding that a person is still valuable even if >they do not do "regular work". My own belief is if systems aren't developed to help us work smarter then the jobs will disappear anyway to the company that does develop such systems. support@mdbs.uucp or {rutgers,ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!pur-ee!mdbs!support The mdbs BBS can be reached at: (317) 447-6685 300/1200/2400 baud, 8 bits, 1 stop bit, no parity Kevin Castleberry (kbc) Director of Customer Services Micro Data Base Systems Inc. P.O. Box 248 Lafayette, IN 47902 (317) 448-6187 ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 88 01:56:48 GMT From: hubcap!mrspock@gatech.edu (Steve Benz) Subject: Re: The future of AI - my opinion >From article <2070012@otter.hple.hp.com>, by cdfk@otter.hple.hp.com (Caroline Knight): > The Turing Test is hardly adequate - I'm surprised that people > still bring it up... > > The day when we have won is the inverse of the Turing Test - someone > will say this has to be a human not a computer - a computer > couldn't have made such a crass mistake... > > ...Caroline Knight Isn't this exactly the Turing test (rather than the inverse?) A computer being just as human as a human? Well, either way, the point is taken. In fact, I agree with it. I think that in order for a machine to be convincing as a human, it would need to have the bad qualities of a human as well as the good ones, i.e. it would have to be occasionally stupid, arrogant, ignorant, etc.&soforth. So, who needs that? Who is going to sit down and (intentionally) write a program that has the capacity to be stupid, arrogant, or ignorant? I think the goal of AI is somewhat askew of the Turing test. If a rational human develops an intelligent computer, it will almost certainly have a personality quite distinct from any human. - Steve mrspock@hubcap.clemson.edu ...!gatech!hubcap!mrspock ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 88 07:46:11 GMT From: cca.ucsf.edu!daedalus!brianc@cgl.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer) Subject: Re: The future of AI [was Re: Time Magazine -- Computers of the Future] Douglas Hofsteader says in Godel, Escher, Bach that we are probably too dumb to understand ourselves at level to make an intelligence comparable to our own. He uses the analogy of giraffes which just don't have the bio-hardware to contemplate their own exisitance. We too may just not have the bio-hardware to organize a true intelligence. Now there are many significant things to be done short of this goal. The real question for AI is, "Can there really be an alternative paradigm to the Turing test which will guide and inspire the field in significant areas?" Well...thats my $0.02 =============================================================================== : UC San Francisco : brianc@daedalus.ucsf.edu Brian Colfer : Dept. of Lab. Medicine : ...!ucbvax!daedalus.ucsf.edu!brianc : PH. 415-476-2325 : brianc@ucsfcca.bitnet =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 88 04:33:54 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!RLWALD@princeton.edu (Robert Wald) Subject: Re: The future of AI - my opinion In article <1348@hubcap.UUCP>, mrspock@hubcap.UUCP (Steve Benz) writes: > Isn't this exactly the Turing test (rather than the inverse?) >A computer being just as human as a human? Well, either way, >the point is taken. > > In fact, I agree with it. I think that in order for a machine to be >convincing as a human, it would need to have the bad qualities of a human >as well as the good ones, i.e. it would have to be occasionally stupid, >arrogant, ignorant, etc.&soforth. > > So, who needs that? Who is going to sit down and (intentionally) >write a program that has the capacity to be stupid, arrogant, or ignorant? I think that you are missing the point. Its because you're using charged words to describe humans. Ignorant: Well, I would certainly expect an AI to be ignorant of things or combinations of things it hasn't been told about. Stupid: People are stupid either because they don't have proper procedures to deal with information, or because they are ignorant of the real meaning of the information they do possess and thus use it wrongly. I don't see any practical computer having some method of always using the right procedure, and I've already said that I think it would be ignorant of certain things. People think and operate by using a lot of heuristics on an incredible amount of information. So much that it is probably hopeless to develop perfect algorithms, even with a very fast computer. So i think that computers will have to use these heuristics also. Eventually, we may develop methods that are more powerful and reliable than humans. Computers are not subject to the hardware limitations of the brain. But meanwhile I don't think that what you have mentioned are 'bad' qualities of the brain, nor unapplicable to computers. Arrogance: It is unlikely that people will attempt to give computers emotions for some time. On the other hand, I try not (perhaps failing at times) to be arrogant or nasty. But as far as the turing test is concerned, a computer which can parse real language could conceivably parse for emotional content and be programmed to respond. There may even be some application for this, so it may be done. The only application for simulating arrogance production might be if you are really trying to fool workers into thinking their boss is a human, or at least trying to make them forget it is a computer. I'm not really that concerned with arrogance, but I think that an AI could be very 'stupid' and 'ignorant'. Not ones that deal with limited domains, but ones that are going to operate in the real world. -Rob Wald Bitnet: RLWALD@PUCC.BITNET Uucp: {ihnp4|allegra}!psuvax1!PUCC.BITNET!RLWALD Arpa: RLWALD@PUCC.Princeton.Edu "Why are they all trying to kill me?" "They don't realize that you're already dead." -The Prisoner ------------------------------ End of AIList Digest ********************